Those who oppose nuclear power fall in two camps: people who honestly believe there is something insurmountable about nuclear technology, and antihumanists, who think humanity as a whole is bad, and the planet would be much better if we were fewer, the fewer the better (see for example Club of Rome [1]).
In the past few years we've had so many discussions about nuclear here on Hacker News. Mostly unproductive. I think it would be more productive if people explicitly stated their position in one camp or the other at the time they bring their arguments.
There's also the camp that noticed that everything the pro-nuclear propagandists say about the supposed upsides is either paltering or an outright lie, and they constantly resort to slimy rhetorical tricks like saying:
> Those who oppose nuclear power fall in two camps: people who honestly believe there is something insurmountable about nuclear technology, and antihumanists, who think humanity as a whole is bad, and the planet would be much better if we were fewer, the fewer the better (see for example Club of Rome [1]).
> There's also the camp that noticed that everything the pro-nuclear propagandists say about the supposed upsides is either paltering or an outright lie
At this point, both camps are blatantly lying. That's the very nature of a polarized discussion that has lasted for decades with very few new elements.
I guess you can't blame GP for being sour about discussions he's had on that topic. But at the same time, it's kind of odd he didn't notice people from his own side peddling blatant lies.
Yes. The capacity factor is a blatant lie given that units 1 & 2 are about 60%, and the costs are an old estimate of overnight cost without escalation or inflation.
Comparing overnight costs to final all-in prices is one way nukebros love to lie.
You're also pretending operating costs don't exist.
You're also pretending that costs for a solar project in 2015-2019 are costs today. This is another blatant lie.
Longevity is another lie. The median and mean ages of the plants that actually get completed is around 30 years, not 60. The average for nuclear plants that are paid for is even lower because so many do not open at all.
But, can you please do me a favor and tell people around here where you stand?
Do you believe that the technology underlying nuclear reactors is simply uncompetitive and you oppose it because of that? Or you would be very unhappy for nuclear technology to succeed no matter what?
And more importantly, are you happy that humans exist on this planet? Would you prefer for us to be fewer?
What do you think of someone who has 3 children? Is this moral? Or is it a crime?
We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines. That's not allowed here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are.
We warned you about this once before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30275782). Normally I'd have posted another warning rather than banning you, but you've been breaking the rules so shockingly and so frequently that I think we have to.
There's another issue too: single-purpose accounts are not allowed here, so when an account is using HN primarily for battle on one specific topic, as yours has, we end up banning them as well. But although that's an important rule, it's less important than the rules asking people not to attack and abuse others.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
In the past few years we've had so many discussions about nuclear here on Hacker News. Mostly unproductive. I think it would be more productive if people explicitly stated their position in one camp or the other at the time they bring their arguments.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome